Filed 2/19/15 P. v. George CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. ALEXANDER S. GEORGE , Defendant and Appellant. D066001

(Super. Ct. No. SCN320305)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carlos O. Armour, Judge. Affirmed.

Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND Defendant and Appellant Al exander S. George pled guilty to two counts of robbery growing out of a single incident in 20 13 in which he flashed a shiny object at an2 employee of a Taco Bell restaurant and dema nded money from a cash register and then flashed the object at a second employee in an attempt to get her to open the restaurant's safe. (Pen. Code, 1 § 211.) Defendant also admitted that he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life on count 1; the court also imposed a consecu tive five-year term for a prior serious felony plus a one-year term for the personal use of a dangerous weapon. The court ordered the same sentence on the second robbery conviction in count 2, to be served concurrently, and struck a one-year prison prio r. The court ordered defenda nt to pay various fines and fees, and awarded actual credits and section 2933 .1 conduct credits. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment, and the trial court granted his request for a certificate of probab le cause. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ), appointed counsel suggested the following as possible, but not arguable, issues on appeal: (1) Was defend ant properly advised of the consequences of pleading guilty? (2) Was de fendant advised of his cons titutional rights, and did he waive them before he pleaded guilty? (3) Did the court abus e its discretion by declining to strike any of defendant's f our strike priors? (4) Did the court give proper reasons for declining to exercise its discretion. (See People v. Superior Court ( Romero ) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 531-532; People v Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161.)

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.3 We granted defendant leave to file a brie f on his own behalf, a nd he has done so. In his brief, supported by decl arations from his mother, fath er and sister, he complains that he felt pressured by his retained counsel to change his plea and that his counsel suggested he would be sentence d to a maximum of 18 years. We have independently reviewed the entir e record and have found no reasonably arguable issues. (See People v Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d at p. 438.) We therefore affirm.
DISCUSSION The record shows that on February 25, 2014, at the change of plea hearing, defendant indicated that he would be pleading guilty; that he understo od the nature of the charges against him, the possible defenses and the consequences of his pleading guilty; that he had not taken any drugs, alcohol or other medication in the last 24 hours; and that he had enough time to go over his case with his attorney. The court reviewed the specifics of the change of pl ea form with defendant and added: "Do you understand that there is no agreement between you and the Pe ople for your plea an d admission to those priors?" Defendant replied, "Yes."
The court also asked defendant if he understood the following: (1) the maximum consequence of his plea is 62 years to life; (2) he was subject to a $10,000 fine; (3) he was subject to parole for at least 10 years or for life; (4) that the offenses he was admitting to constituted two additional strikes; (5) he would be deport ed if he was not a citizen; (5) at sentencing, his attorney would present a moti on for the court to consider striking some of the prior strikes—but the se ntence would be up to the court's discretion and defendant "could very well be sentenced to 62-years-to-life"; (7) his future period of incarceration would count as a prison prior; his maximum credits would be 15 percent;4 and, if he were to be sentenced to the full extent, it would be a life sentence. Defendant answered "yes" to all of th e trial court's questions.
Defendant then admitted that on or about June 17, 2013 , he committed two counts of robbery and personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon as to both counts; he also admitted all prior allegations. Defendant s tipulated to the facts of the two current
offenses as contained in th e preliminary hearing transcri pt—as did defense counsel and the prosecutor. Defense counsel indicated that he concurred with defendant's entry of plea and waiver of constitutional rights. The court then accepted the plea of guilty by finding that defendant had ma de a voluntary, knowing, a nd intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights and that there was a factual basis for the admission. At the April 21, 2014 sentencing heari ng, the court indicated it had read and considered the probation officer's report, the prosecution's statement in aggravation, the defense statement in mitigation, incl uding support letters, and the defense Romero motion. The probation report indicated that defendant's criminal record included four
armed robberies at Taco Bell restaurants for which he was convicted in 2007. The court
said it had reviewed case law "as to when th e Court should exercise [its] discretion to striking strikes," and added, "[a]nd for me to do so, I think, would fall short of what a reasonable judge would do under these circumstances." The court said it had reviewed all factors, which included "t he current and past offenses, his background, character and prospect in the future," and determined those factors do "not support a finding that relief under the three strikes law is warranted." The court concluded that it "would not be a reasonable exercise by this Cour t to grant" the defense motion. The court then denied the5 defense motion to strike the prior strikes and sentenced defendant to 25 years to life plus six years. In light of this record, we find no basi s upon which to relieve defendant from his plea or the sentence imposed by the trial c ourt. Defendant has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, J.

AARON, J.